PDF Version

June 25, 2019

SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Derrick Bragg, MHA for Fogo Island - Cape Freels,

substitutes for Scott Reid, MHA for St. George's - Humber.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Craig Pardy, MHA for Bonavista, substitutes for

David Brazil, MHA for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

The

Committee met at 9:02 in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (P. Parsons):

Good morning everyone.

I guess

we're ready to start now for the Estimates for the Department of Education.

We'll start on this side by everybody introducing themselves and then we'll

carry on over here to this side.

MR. WARR:

Brian Warr, Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Minister of Education and

Early Childhood Development.

MR. GARDINER:

Bob Gardiner, Deputy Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MS. STAMP:

Tracy Stamp, Departmental Controller, Department of Education and Early

Childhood Development.

MR. BARNES:

Eldred Barnes, Associate Deputy Minister, Education and Early Childhood

Development.

MS. PITCHER:

Margot Pitcher, Executive Assistant to Minister Warr.

MS. HOWARD:

Jacquelyn Howard, Director of Communications with Education and Early Childhood

Development.

MS. GOSS-PROWSE:

Mary Goss-Prowse, Director of Early Learning and Child Development Division.

MS. CHURCHILL :

Elizabeth Churchill, Assistant Deputy Minister, K-12 and Early Childhood

Development.

MR. BARRON:

Steve Barron, Manager of Budgeting.

MR. RUSSELL:

Brad Russell, Director, Research and Policy with the Official Opposition.

MR. PARDY:

Craig Pardy, MHA, District of Bonavista.

MR. J. DINN:

James Dinn, MHA, District of St. John's Centre.

MS. WILLIAMS:

Susan Williams, Research for the Third Party.

MR. BENNETT:

Derek Bennett, MHA, Lewisporte - Twillingate.

MR. BRAGG:

Derrick Bragg, MHA, Fogo Island - Cape Freels.

MR. LOVELESS:

Elvis Loveless, MHA, Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

CHAIR:

I'm Pam Parsons, MHA for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, and I'm your Chair this

morning.

The

minister has 15 minutes to introduce his estimates and the member speaking

immediately in reply also has 15 minutes, and all other Committee members will

have 10 minutes to speak. We can certainly address each other by name rather

than portfolio or district today. And a reminder, to please introduce yourself

before you speak.

Minister, would you like to start?

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good

morning, everyone. I'm privileged to be joined by my colleagues here from the

department this morning. We'll just take a few minutes to provide an overview of

the budget for Education and Early Childhood Development and some highlights of

activities this past year.

The

total gross budget for the department is $836,307,500, and this is comprised of:

Executive Services, $1,069,800; Corporate Services, $3,487,800; Kindergarten to

Grade 12, $771,890,800; and Early Childhood Development, $59,859,100.

The

Education Action Plan has been the primary focus of our work over this past year

and will continue to be so for kindergarten to grade 12.

Budget 2019 has increased funding to

support the implementation of the plan by just over $6 million, for a total

budget this year of $13.2 million.

This

includes: $9 million in teaching services; $2 million in professional learning

for teachers; $975,000 for other additional human resources; $550,000 in

learning resources; $238,000 for youth apprenticeship and co-operative

education; $180,000 for a new case management system; and $40,000 in bursaries

for teachers to upgrade math.

Just to

provide more detail in terms of what this means directly in our classrooms:

there are 21 new reading specialists this current year, increasing to 104 over

the next two years; 54 teaching and learning assistants hired this current

school year, increasing to over 200 the next two years; 13.5 additional teacher

librarians this current school year, increasing to 39 over the next two years.

mentioned earlier, the budget this year for Early Childhood Development is just

over $59 million. Our work has been guided in recent years by the Early Learning

and Child Care framework; $22 million was allocated over three years through

this bilateral agreement with the federal government, supporting improved

families. More specifically, the funding is supporting expanding and enhancing

the Operating Grant Program, changes to the child care services subsidy, and

enhancing the child care capacity initiative.

We are

also improving the quality of early learning and child care by enhancing grants,

bursaries and professional learning for early childhood educators; establishing

the Capital Renovation Grant and establishing the Quality Improvement grant

Program.

There

is an overall increase in the budget for teaching services for 2019-2020 of just

over $1.4 million. And, as noted, we have additional teaching and learning

second language teachers.

That's

a brief overview of the budget this year. I hope it's helpful as we get underway

this morning, and we look forward to your questions.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Clerk,

please, broadcast.

CLERK (Hammond):

1.1.01 to 1.2.01.

CHAIR:

You can go.

MR. PARDY:

I, off the top, ask for your forgiveness if I breach any protocols or

procedures; this is all new to me. It's good to see Eldred, again.

I'm

just wondering, if possible, if we could obtain a copy of the binder, the

minister's binder or briefing binder?

MR. WARR:

Absolutely.

MR. PARDY:

Okay.

This

year's budget had an increase in salaries of $28,400 over what was spent last

year. I think last year it increased by $3,500. This year it would be by

$25,000, if I'm not mistaken. I just wonder, what would account for this

increase?

MR. WARR:

The revised was $26,600, and the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and

Labour assumed the responsibility for Education and Early Childhood Development,

and the salary was covered off by AESL for the portion of the fiscal year.

MR. PARDY:

That portion of which salary?

MR. WARR:

The responsibility for EECD was covered off by the Minister of AESL. He was

handling the two positions. That's why there was a decrease over the year.

MR. PARDY:

Okay.

Just

for clarification, in the Estimates last year there was a question that was

posed to the minister then that the budgeted amount for Salaries was $818,000,

but the actual expenditure was $1.8 million. The minister then replied that it

was due to the reduction of three executive members: The former deputy minister,

the former assistant deputy minister and the secretary to the ADM.

I was

just curious and just roughly looking at if it was just those three figures and

the difference was a million dollars, would the severance have been as high as

in excess of $300,000 in those positions?

MR. WARR:

Are you into 1.2.01?

MR. PARDY:

1.1.01.

MR. WARR:

Okay so that's the –

MR. PARDY:

I'm just referencing last year. I'm sorry if that –

MR. WARR:

Yeah, I'll defer that to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

Last year, it would have been severance and redundancy pay or payout for the

deputy minister, the assistant deputy minister and one of the secretaries. The

deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister would've been severance and,

again, payout because the contracts were ended. As well as then, the secretary

would've been through the attrition management and the restructuring of

management at the department.

That's

why the number seems higher than just severance. That would've been leave

payout, as well as payout for ending the contract and then severance as well.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you.

noticed throughout the previous Estimates last year it often referred to the

term – and the then-minister referred probably on three or more occasions to a

Flatter, Leaner exercise. I would assume that would be continuing in this budget

as well? That was the term that he had used.

MR. WARR:

I'll defer that to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

The Flatter, Leaner exercise was a one-time thing that happened last fiscal

year, whereby some of the senior management would have been reduced. For

example, in the department there was a reduction of three directors and there

were some administrative positions, as well, at the executive level that were

reduced. That was a one-time exercise.

The

Attrition Management Plan, which is different, goes on this year, which we can

speak to later on. That would be done through retirements and people simply

leaving. The Flatter, Leaner was targeted at senior management and it was a

one-time thing last year.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you.

Are we

still applying the zero-based budgeting?

MR. WARR:

Yes, we are.

CHAIR:

We're good. For the time of your duration you can say your name and, then, you

know you're good for that time.

MR. PARDY:

Okay, so I don't need to say my name each time?

CHAIR:

No, that's right.

MR. PARDY:

Good stuff.

I'm

wondering how many retirements have occurred in the last year? I apologize if

I'm jumping around.

MR. WARR:

You're speaking –

MR. PARDY:

The department.

MR. WARR:

We'd have to get that for you.

MR. PARDY:

Okay.

Can you

inform us of the current student-teacher ratio and if there are any changes to

that this year?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer that to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

I don't have the exact number in front of me, but it's normally around 12.3

students per full-time equivalent teacher. Typically, that would be in the top

two or three in Canada – or the lowest two or three in Canada. That's been

pretty consistent over the past three or four years.

MR. PARDY:

Does that include now just the classroom teachers, but that's the myriad of all

the staff that the school system would have? Are reading specialists included as

well in that?

MR. GARDINER:

That would include all teachers, so that would be administrators, reading

specialists, learning resource teachers, special education and instructional

resource teachers. That would be a common measure across all provinces and

territories in Canada, so it would be comparable.

MR. PARDY:

Okay, just those who work within the schools that we have?

MR. GARDINER:

Correct.

MR. PARDY:

Good. Thank you.

1.2.01,

we can move to that section?

CHAIR:

Yes.

MR. PARDY:

Last year, the department had a substantial overrun of $139,000, yet this year

they are budgeting less. I wonder if you can clarify that.

MR. WARR:

The revised $139,200 is salary contingents for an abolished administration

support position, plus severance, which ended May 23, plus backfill for an

existing administrative support position; salary continuance for the director of

communications until March 29, 2019; a special advisor related to the Education

Action Plan assigned to Education and Early Childhood Development effective

2019-01-21; and the other part was a deputy minister severance payout.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you.

Is it

possible to move on to 2.1.01?

CHAIR:

No, we're not going to do that now. We'll stay within this subsection. If you're

finished questions about this particular subsection, we can move on to the next

speaker. We're just going to finish this

section first, okay?

MR. PARDY:

Yeah.

CHAIR:

Mr. Dinn.

MR. J. DINN:

No, I think it's safe to say that my colleague to the left has addressed our

concerns in that section.

CHAIR:

Okay.

there are no further questions for this particular section, we can call the

subheads.

CLERK:

1.1.01 to 1.2.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

1.1.01 to 1.2.01 inclusive.

Shall

those carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 1.2.01 carried.

CHAIR:

Okay and moving on now.

CLERK:

2.1.01 to 2.2.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

We'll start with our first speaker.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Last

year, the department had a substantial overrun of $129,100, yet this year they

are budgeting less than what was spent last year.

MR. WARR:

Yes, it was for severance and leave payouts for an employee. So in budget

2019-2020, there is $62,500 related to the department's attrition management

savings that were budgeted in this activity in 2018-2019. However, the attrition

management savings were achieved in other activities, partially offset by

$24,800 related to new incumbents at lower levels than predecessors.

MR. PARDY:

Would this be the branch of government that would oversee the expenditures

related to the school board district, in some degree?

MR. WARR:

No.

MR. PARDY:

May I ask which branch that would be?

MR. WARR:

School Board Operations.

MR. PARDY:

Okay.

MR. WARR:

It's under 3.1.02.

MR. PARDY:

Okay.

The

Employee Benefits, last year there was $17,000 less spent compared to what was

budgeted.

MR. WARR:

Yes, workers' compensation expenses were lower than anticipated. You can note

that these expenses can vary significantly from year to year and are determined

by the number of injured workers and the services they require. Workers'

compensation expense was $12,000 in 2017-2018, $28,500 in 2016-2017 and actually

$36,400 in 2015-2016.

MR. PARDY:

And that is from the reduction of employees, I would assume – the benefits saved

as a result of the reduction?

MR. WARR:

No, it's just based on the injured workers.

MR. PARDY:

Okay.

Transportation and Communications, last year there was $10,000 less spent

compared to what was budgeted.

MR. WARR:

Yes, that has to do with the department's usage of postage and courier services

was lower than anticipated. Savings were partially used to offset Property,

Furnishings and Equipment and Professional Services.

MR. PARDY:

I guess the electronic domain helps in that department.

MR. WARR:

Yes.

MR. PARDY:

In Supplies, last year there was $5,000 less spent compared to what was

budgeted.

MR. WARR:

The department's usage of copy paper was lower than anticipated.

MR. PARDY:

In Purchased Services, $15,000 less spent compared to what was budgeted.

MR. WARR:

The amount of printing done by the department was lower than anticipated.

MR. PARDY:

The final question, under

Grants and Subsidies, last year there was $5,300 less given out in Grants and

Subsidies compared to what was budgeted, yet this year you are budgeting the

same.

MR. WARR:

These are for minister's discretionary grants. And they are paid out based on

requests received by schools. It is difficult to predict when these requests

will be received. Less requests were received and approved this fiscal and,

therefore, savings were realized.

MR. PARDY:

Were any requests unapproved?

MR. WARR:

No.

MR. PARDY:

And if I'm mistaken, these grants and subsidies, they vary from year to year?

MR. WARR:

Yes.

MR. PARDY:

Like playground equipment and IT needs?

MR. WARR:

Yes.

MR. PARDY:

Okay.

Is it

possible we may obtain a list of those grants that were approved?

MR. WARR:

Sure, absolutely.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you.

I'm

sorry, I misspoke before, if I can squeeze in one more question. The Revenue –

Provincial, last year the department took in $40,000 less revenue than expected.

I wonder if you can clarify that.

MR. WARR:

The revenue to this account can be highly variable, as it is mostly related to

repayments of prior year expenses. Revenue is recovered from payroll

overpayments, accounts payable overpayments, overpayments of early learning and

childhood care supplements, and the repayments of grants to students and

teachers for educational travel that did not occur for various reasons. These

repayments were lower than anticipated.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you.

That's

the last question I have for that section, Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

And

we'll move on to the next speaker.

Mr.

Dinn.

MR. J. DINN:

So we're doing it

section by section, as in 2.1.01. Okay.

So with

regard to this, Transportation and Communications, can I have an idea of what's

included with transportation and communications? What are the services?

MR. WARR:

It provides for travel and telephone costs of personnel whose functions come

under the activity, and all postage costs for the department. Actually, the

figures were made up of $127,400 for postage, $100 for travel and $8,100 for

telephone.

MR. J. DINN:

I'm sorry, how much for travel again?

MR. WARR:

One hundred dollars.

MR. J. DINN:

Just $100 for travel?

MR. WARR:

Yes.

MR. J. DINN:

And for postage?

MR. WARR:

The postage was $127,400.

MR. J. DINN:

Really? And $100 for travel, and the remainder was for what, sorry?

MR. WARR:

Eighty-one hundred for telephone.

MR. J. DINN:

So what would be involved – what exactly are we mailing out that would cost

$127,000?

MR. WARR:

Public exams and the assessments.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

The

operating grants, we notice that, again, from last year, the revised budget was

down significantly. Is there a reason why the Operating Accounts were under

spent?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer that to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

So, Jim, the operating grant is down by about $45,000. And each one of those are

articulated up above, which the minister went over with MHA Pardy, in terms of

the reduction for Employee Benefits, Transportation and Communications,

Supplies, et cetera.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you very much, Sir.

And

that would be it for 2.1.01.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Are there no further

questions on this particular section?

MR. PARDY:

I'm not sure if this is the right one to ask. The student population, in

2016-2017 it was 66,323 and 2017-2018, 65,398. I was wondering what it would be

this current year.

MR. WARR:

Student population – 64,336.

MR. PARDY:

A drop of about 1,000 a year.

MR. WARR:

You're correct.

CHAIR:

Okay, you're good?

Mr.

Dinn, do you have any more for this section?

MR. J. DINN:

2.1.02?

CHAIR:

Yes.

MR. J. DINN:

With regards to Grants and Subsidies, is it possible to have a breakdown of the

organizations, the amount disbursed to each in 2019?

MR. WARR:

Absolutely.

The

Murphy Centre is $866,400; the Cultural Connections strategy was $250,000, that

has artists, tradition bearers and heritage professionals working with students;

$60,000 was for community-based fine arts and cultural festivals; $100,000 for

student travel to fine arts and cultural events; $24,400 for cultural resources;

print and non-print for students and teachers, that was $434,400; Council of

Atlantic Ministers of Education and Training, $119,000; Council of Ministers of

Education of Canada, $100,400; Learning Disabilities Association, $25,000;

Encounters with Canada, $21,600; and the Federation of School Councils was

$21,200 for a total of $1,588,000.

MR. J. DINN:

I noticed there in last year's, and it seems to be the case here, I could be

wrong, but last year's budget, the Federation of School Councils was the lowest

at $21,200. Any reason why it's so low?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer that to Bob Gardiner.

MR. GARDINER:

There's no particular reason. That's what it's been over the past two to three

years. There's no particular reason why it's $21,200. It has been reduced over

the past number of years, but it's been $21,200 for, I think, three years now.

MR. J. DINN:

Actually, it's been reduced since 2015, when it was at $30,000. It's

interesting, that coincides with the introduction of a Liberal administration.

In 2015, it was $30,000, and it seems to have been reduced significantly by

about almost $8,800.

I'm

trying to get an understanding as to why that Federation of School Councils – a

democratic organization – has had its budget cut by the Liberal administration.

That's what I would really like to know, especially since they are so integral

to the school system. Any thoughts on that, please.

MR. WARR:

It's probably part of the budget process, Jim. Certainly, I'll take a note of it

and see if I can get you a better explanation.

MR. J. DINN:

Actually, I think, too, in the leadership debate at the NLTA in 2016, the

Premier committed to actually increasing the grant to $50,000 per annum. So, I'd

really like to know, not only why that promise hasn't been fulfilled, but why in

successive years your department, your government has deemed it fit to reduce

the funding of an organization such as it. That would really be helpful, because

I think a government should be looking at supporting an advocacy group and a not

for profit. That would definitely be important to get.

Thank

you.

MR. WARR:

I've taken a note of that, Jim, and I'll get back to you on it.

MR. J. DINN:

If I could, just a follow-up with regards to the Cultural Connections strategy

to make sure I'm getting the number correctly, did you say that the amount being

given out this year was for $250,000-plus?

MR. WARR:

It was a total of $434,400, of which the Cultural Connections strategy was

$250,000.

MR. J. DINN:

Last year, the Cultural Connections strategy had a budget of $872,000, almost

$873,000. I'm just more or less trying to line up last year's budget with this

year's.

Council

of Ministers of Education has not seen a decrease, Council of Atlantic Ministers

of Education has not seen a decrease, Federation of School Councils has seen a

decrease and Cultural Connections strategy has seen a decrease. I'm just trying

to get – make sure that when I'm looking at last year's budget line for Cultural

Connections strategy and I'm reading the amount, I'm reading the same one.

So,

$872,900 last year, and, if I understand you correctly, $434,000. Are we talking

about the same thing this year?

MR. WARR:

With regards to the Cultural Connections strategy, there's no change in the

budget year over year.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

The T.

I. Murphy Centre, $866,400, still, yes?

MR. WARR:

Yes.

MR. J. DINN:

Encounters with Canada and all the rest of it seems to be the same. Okay, those

are the two. I'm just trying to make sure that – the numbers don't line up.

Thank

you.

MR. WARR:

Thank you.

MR. J. DINN:

I think that's if for 2.1.02.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

You have some more

questions? Okay.

MR. PARDY:

Just wondering if we can get a spreadsheet showing the expenditures in each of

those applicants since 2015? Are they the same group since 2015 with no

exclusions? Would it be the same amount that's granted each year?

I know

the change that my colleague has stated, I brought that one. Would the others

have remained the same since 2015?

MR. WARR:

So you're talking about the Grants and Subsidies?

MR. PARDY:

Yes.

MR. WARR:

We'll get you a copy of that.

MR. PARDY:

Okay.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Okay, we're all good? Okay.

I think

we'll call the subhead now for the vote.

CLERK:

2.1.01 to 2.2.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

2.1.01 to 2.2.01 inclusive.

Shall

those carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

3.1.01 to 3.6.01.

MR. WARR:

Is that 2 point …? It should

be 2 point …

MR. GARDINER:

No, she called all the twos.

CLERK:

Did I miss one?

CHAIR:

Yes, I think we did. Yeah,

we should have went to 2.1.02.

CLERK:

We just voted on 2.1.01 to

2.2.01?

CHAIR:

Yeah (inaudible).

Moving

on now to

section 3.

CLERK:

If the Committee (inaudible)

agree.

CHAIR:

But if you have further

questions on the (inaudible) we can certainly go back if there are more

questions to that subhead.

MR. J. DINN:

If I may.

I was

of the understanding that we'd be going through it

section by

section right now,

as opposed to the whole – we're moving to 3. I stopped at 2.1.02 because, based

on what we've been doing already, we've been going through each

section by

section and alternating. So, are we now changing so that we can ask questions on

all of

section 2?

CHAIR:

Yes, that's the objective.

We go the whole entire

section of 2 before we move on to 3. So, if there are

further questions you can certainly go ahead.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you. That's why I stopped at the end of 2.1, because I was assuming we're

going back to 2.1.03, and Mr. Pardy. So, are we carrying on, then, with 2.1.03?

CHAIR:

Yes.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay. So I'll just finish all that, if I may, Mr. Pardy, just 2.1.03?

2.1.03, with regard to Salaries, it's a significant under expenditure of

$160,300.

MR. WARR:

They were savings resulting from vacant positions for portions of time, step

changes for new incumbents and reclassification of one position.

MR. J. DINN:

How many positions would that be? One?

MR. WARR:

Did you ask how many positions?

MR. J. DINN:

Yes.

MR. WARR:

Twelve.

MR. J. DINN:

Twelve. Thank you.

Is it

possible to have what those positions were as well when you get a chance if you

have them there? If not, later on is fine, too.

MR. WARR:

It's a director of Policy and Information Management, clerk typist III,

information management analyst, manager of information management, program and

policy development specialists – there were three of those – two information

management analysts, two information management tech IIs and an electronic

content management coordinator.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you.

With

regard to Professional Services, I notice that was not spent in 2018-'19?

MR. WARR:

Hiring of outside expertise was not required this fiscal for initial work on the

legislative reviews and other policy functions; for example, the EAP Schools Act

review and the PeopleSoft consultant.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you very much.

That's

it for 2.1.03.

MR. PARDY:

If I may go back to the Salaries again, those 12 vacant positions, they added up

to $160,000?

MR. WARR:

They weren't vacant positions, they were current positions.

MR. PARDY:

Oh, they were permanent?

MR. WARR:

Yes.

MR. PARDY:

The loss of those positions added up to $160,000 less – there was more?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer to Bob Gardiner.

MR. PARDY:

Okay.

MR. GARDINER:

Yes, the positions that the minister read off, those are current positions

within that division. The vacant positions resulted from the amalgamation of the

Information Management and the Policy Divisions into one, so it took some time

then to fill some of those positions. There weren't 12 vacant positions, the 12

positions are the current structure of that division.

MR. PARDY:

All right, thank you.

Just a

quick question on the Property, Furnishings and Equipment. Last year, the

department spent $6,700 more than what was budgeted. I'm wondering if you can

explain it.

MR. WARR:

Yes, it was the purchase of two laptops, tables, chairs and shelving for the

registry.

MR. PARDY:

For the registry?

MR. WARR:

Yes.

MR. PARDY:

From my position, I'm done with 2.1.03.

CHAIR:

You're finished? Okay.

Mr.

Dinn, do you have further questions?

MR. J. DINN:

In 2.2.01, with regard to Youth Interns, these positions, I take it, were

created under the now defunct federal Community Access Program for computer

training in schools and libraries and the province took over funding for them.

It looks like the funding for interns is discontinued here. Will the interns be

funded under another program?

MR. WARR:

Yes. In January 2018, EECD was notified that the Youth Interns Program had

changed to the Digital Skills for Youth Program with significantly different

eligibility criteria. Due to the program changes, EECD determined that it would

not be participating in the program any longer as it falls outside of our

mandate. This budget was transferred to AESL.

MR. J. DINN:

Perfect. That's it, I think, for

section 2 from me.

CHAIR:

Okay.

there are no further questions on this particular subhead, we will vote.

CLERK:

2.1.01 to 2.2.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

2.1.01 to 2.2.01 inclusive.

Shall

those carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, subheads 2.1.01 through 2.2.01 carried.

CLERK:

3.1.01 to 3.6.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Okay and we'll have our

first speaker, please.

MR. PARDY:

Salaries; last year the department spent $19,000 less than what was budgeted,

yet this year the budget would be the same. You can clarify that?

MR. WARR:

That's Allowances and Assistance.

MR. PARDY:

Sorry, Allowances and –

MR. WARR:

Yes, that's $19,000 a year. These are application-based bursaries related to

math under the Education Action Plan. Less bursaries were applied for than

budgeted during the fiscal year.

MR. PARDY:

This bursary program was in place for the past couple of years?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

Last year would've been the first year for this particular bursary program as

part of the Education Action Plan. We did have significant uptake on the bursary

program, in excess of 50 teachers applying. The problem becomes in terms of when

we reimburse the teachers for doing the courses at university after they

complete.

While

they were approved, they had a year to complete. The uptake was significant –

50-plus teachers – but the payout never happened in the last fiscal year, so

that will happen in this fiscal year.

MR. PARDY:

These are teachers that can avail of math classes at MUN?

MR. GARDINER:

Correct.

MR. WARR:

Yes.

MR. PARDY:

Is it during the school year or would it be in their off time?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

There's no restriction on when they do the course. In some cases, they may be

doing it at MUN in the evening time, or it could be during the summer, or it

could be online. It's not restricted to Memorial, although most of the

applications for the bursaries were for a MUN program, but it could be at any

university that would be approved.

MR. PARDY:

In the 50-plus that applied, was the bulk in one component of the school system,

like elementary, intermediate, high school?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

These are targeted for only primary and elementary teachers, based on the

recommendations from the task force report.

MR. PARDY:

Under Regular Teachers, an increase of $1,171,000 and some over the last year.

If you can provide the details that would account for that increase?

MR. WARR:

We had savings of $2,125,000 related to declining enrollment. Then there was an

increase of $1,384,400 related to the Education Action Plan. There was an

increase of a little over $1.9 million related to reprofiling of funds for

teaching and learning assistants from School Board Operations to Teaching

Services.

MR. PARDY:

Were these initiatives in the Premier's Task Force?

MR. WARR:

Yes, they were.

MR. PARDY:

Substitute teachers –

MR. WARR:

I'm just going to defer to Bob Gardiner, please.

MR. GARDINER:

Mr. Pardy, just to provide a little more clarification. In terms of that

particular budget, there was a decline of 49 teaching units because of declining

second language teachers – four of those – an extra reading specialist

allocation, learning resource teacher allocation, as well as teaching and

learning assistants.

When

the minister referenced the reprofiling of the funds for teaching and learning

assistants, prior to last budget we had the money for teaching and learning

assistants – we weren't quite sure where those individuals would be placed.

Subsequent to our discussions, they actually are now NLTA members and they are

covered by the teachers' collective agreement. So we originally had the money in

School Board Operations, but because they are now considered teachers, based on

the NLTA collective agreement, we actually moved the money from School Board

Operations over to Teaching Services.

MR. PARDY:

Okay. So when you gave the figure before, based on the number of teachers that

we have in the system that work in our schools, then this would be a new entity.

MR. GARDINER:

Correct.

MR. PARDY:

The TLAs, and they would be falling under regular teachers.

MR. GARDINER:

Correct.

MR. PARDY:

The only thing that would jump out at me – I know that if I went back six years

ago, the class or the allocation class size in intermediate was 27. My

understanding now it's 31. If it is 31, then I would say to you then I know you

can speak to declining enrolment is why there's a reduction in the number of

teachers, or in the Salaries. But when I see the class size go up, I'd almost

like to see as to – I'm not sure what data can be provided to indicate if in

fact that ratio has changed.

You

mentioned 12.5 before per student of the allocation for the teachers that would

be working in our school systems, and it's been 12.5 for the past six, seven,

eight years – I can't recall. I don't know if that answer can be provided.

MR. GARDINER:

So, yes, the 12.5 would be the – and, again, it's a ballpark figure. I haven't

got it right in front of me, but it's typically between 12 and 12.5, and it's

been that for the past five or six years. That would be the pupil-teacher ratio,

based on the data from Stats Canada.

The 31

that you're referring to would be the class cap in intermediate seven, eight and

nine. And, yes, that has gone up from 27 with the introduction of the new

teacher allocation model in 2007 or '08, I think, and it's now 31.

MR. PARDY:

Can we speak to the practice

of the soft cap? You said it's a new term that I wasn't aware of, but my

understanding now is the soft cap for these intermediate classes would be two

students? So, conceivably, if you have 31 students in a class and 33 may not

lead to an extra teacher being provided?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer to Bob Gardiner.

MR. GARDINER:

The concept of a soft cap

has always been in place since the new teacher allocation model was introduced

in 2007-2008. Basically what that is, is if we're dealing with, for example, a

grade two class where the class cap is 25 – so if there are 25 students in June,

or I should say May 7, because that's when the teacher assignment is done based

on the NLTA collective agreement, then there's one teacher assigned for that

grade two class. If there are two additional students that show up in September,

unanticipated, then the class cap can go to 27. So that's where the soft cap

comes in. If there are 27 there on May 7 and there are 27 there in September,

then there would be two teachers.

In the

recommendations from the Shortall report back in 2007, it acknowledged the fact

that there may be unanticipated students show up in September. So it allows for

the cap to be exceeded by up to two for the September. If it goes to three

extra, then, yes, an additional teacher would need to be assigned.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you for that answer.

I know

that one school currently in the District of Bonavista has a class size now in

June of 33 for September, but the school district has held back the deployment

of that extra teacher. So that is contrary to the soft cap explanation that

occurred that makes good sense, that if you get two students come in in

September you may not get that teacher in September, but here we are now in

June, would be the case where a teacher is being held back when in fact they do

have 33 students exceeding the 31 that would be the allocation.

I know

this is a practice of the school district; the only thing I'd like to speak to

is the fact of the hardship that it causes within the school system. I can speak

as an administer in a school system, that if you hold back a teacher in May and

June, at a time when the resources and the selection would be the greatest in

the professional staff that you look to hire, it's a radical difference back in

September and October if ever that second teacher is allocated, and I would

think it puts the school system under great hardship.

MR. WARR:

You and I have had this

conversation. I'll defer to Bob just for his explanation of that.

MR. GARDINER:

In terms of the soft cap,

hard cap discussion; if, in fact, as you know – if, in fact, the 33 students are

there in September then the extra teaching unit would be deployed. The practice

of the school district is in terms of maximizing resources, and I realize – they

realize it's an inconvenience for the schools in question but, again, if there

are not 33 students there in September and they have – based on the NLTA

collective agreement – assigned a second teacher, then they can't reassign that

teacher in September. So, they basically would hold the unit back.

there are not 33 students, if there are only 29 students there in September,

then they may very well put that teacher in that school or they may decide to

put the teacher somewhere else where the need is greater. But if there are 33

students there in September then the second teacher would be deployed, and the

school district realizes that that is an inconvenience but, again, it's managing

the resources to the best of their ability.

CHAIR:

Okay. The Member's time has

expired for this particular section.

We'll

move on to Mr. Dinn, please.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

I want

to pick up on something that my colleague referred to, and I just want to

clarify. Was it stated that in 2008, I think it was written that the class caps

were increased or the class size was increased? I think it was Mr. Gardiner who

made that comment and I just need to clarify.

MR. GARDINER:

No. In 2008, with the

implementation of the new teacher allocation model, the class caps were actually

introduced. At that time the class cap for intermediate was 27. Subsequently,

over the past number of years it was increased to 29, and more recently, I think

three years ago, to 31;

whereas the class caps in K to three have remained at 20

for kindergarten and 25 for grades one to three.

So,

2008 saw the introduction of the class caps based on the teacher allocation

report from Brian Shortall and, subsequent to that, some of the class caps, in

particular grades four to nine, have increased.

MR. J. DINN:

In fact, in 2016 we saw,

under the Liberal government, an increase in class caps, the introduction of

combined grades, the loss of availability to French immersion for a number of

students. We saw the introducing of the lottery for intensive core French. So,

we saw the introduction of a lot of measures. In 2008, actually, we saw the

decrease in class sizes even in some multi-graded situations, just to clarify

that.

I also

note that in 2016, the Auditor General noted, despite being directed by Cabinet

to evaluate the teacher allocation model three years after it was implemented in

2008-2009, the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development has not

completed the assessment and has not reported back to Cabinet. So I'm curious as

to if a review of the teacher allocation model has been carried out since that

time or is it going ahead – just to follow up on it before I get into my own

questions on it, please.

MR. WARR:

I'll defer that to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

Mr. Dinn, you're absolutely

correct. There was a directive to review the teacher allocation model three

years after its implementation. That wasn't done. I can't speak to why it wasn't

done, but that would have been 2011.

Right

now, with the introduction of the Education Action Plan and the increase in

resources for teachers both from reading specialists, learning resource

we're going into year two of that. Year three will see an addition of 350 extra

teaching resources. At that point in time, I would think that it would be

prudent then to do a review of the teacher allocation model, once all those new

resources have been added to the system.

MR. J. DINN:

So, if I may, am I hearing a

commitment to do, as opposed to it would be prudent to do – am I hearing a

commitment that a review of the teacher allocation model will be done?

MR. WARR:

Once the additional

resources are put in place, absolutely.

MR. J. DINN:

May I ask another question?

With regard to zero-based budgeting, is the whole notion with regard to

zero-based budgeting looking at the needs and then building a budget to

accommodate the needs? Is that not the purpose of zero-based budgeting? At least

in your Way Forward document that's what I noticed.

MR. WARR:

With regard to teachers,

there's no zero-based budgeting.

MR. J. DINN:

However, a teacher

allocation review will be a good start as to determining what the needs are in

the system. I'll come back to that with regard to student assistants in a

minute, but that would be a good start as to determining what teachers are

needed, what resources rather than add – at least you'll have an idea what your

targets should be.

MR. WARR:

Agree.

MR. J. DINN:

So I would have that now –

this is recorded in Hansard that

there will be a teacher allocation review when this is done. Thank you.

So with

regard to 3.1.01, Teaching Services, just out of curiosity, in last year's

Estimates Committee meeting there was a discussion with Mr. Kirby around the

definition of what a TLA is and what their role is and some determination about

credentials and criteria. I'm just curious: Has the role of the TLA been defined

as we go forward?

MR. WARR:

Did you say defined?

M R.

J. DINN: Defined – what exactly does a TLA do? I know there was some

discussion last year, and there was no clear consideration, I think. The comment

was that – some general discussions of what they are, but no clear role,

definition as to what exactly they are. They're going to be assisting teachers,

but has that been clearly defined?

If I'm

know what my role is. If I'm an administrator, like Mr. Pardy to my left, he

would know exactly what his role is. I'm just curious. TLA is a new position

coming in, has there been any thought to firming up the definition and defining

what the roles of the TLA will be? Or is that an ongoing process?

MR. WARR:

Thank you. I'll defer that to Bob Gardiner.

MR. GARDINER:

So this time last year, Jim, the roles and responsibilities weren't quite

defined. And again, as I mentioned earlier, we weren't really sure where they

would fit within the system. With the discussions with the NLTA, it was

determined that they would be best suited as teachers. So they actually now are

part of the NLTA collective agreement, and they are placed on the salary grid at

certification two, level two.

Basically, they have two years of post-secondary education, somewhat related to

education. It could be, actually, an early childhood education program, two-year

program at CNA. Or, in many cases for this current school year, many of them are

actually certified teachers at certification four or greater. In many cases,

five or six.

There

has been a position description developed. Again, this time last year when we

were doing Estimates we had just gotten approval for the teaching and learning

assistant positions in the budget, so the position description wasn't finalized.

But there is a position description that we can certainly provide you, and the

school district is currently actively recruiting the complement of teaching and

learning assistants for next year, because the number will increase from 54 this

year to just over 100 next year, and 200 in year three.

So in

terms of the roles and responsibilities in a nutshell, they are teaching

assistants. They work under the direction of a classroom teacher and they do

take

part in instruction in the classroom, again under the instruction or the

direction of a classroom teacher, but the position description we can certainly

provide you a copy of that.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you.

Are

TLAs – and I presume – included in the budget line under Grants and Subsidies

for two regular teachers? They would be included in that?

MR. WARR:

Yes, they are.

MR. J. DINN:

Are they also included in

determining the student-teacher ratio – the 12.3-1 that was quoted earlier?

MR. WARR:

I defer to Bob Gardiner.

MR. GARDINER:

So in that case – and again,

Jim, the 12.3, I'm just going from memory; it's somewhere between 12 and 12.5.

Those would be numbers that would be provided by Stats Canada. Those numbers

would be a couple of years dated, so they wouldn't be included in that number

right now. I would suggest in the future when Stats Canada looks for the data

then they likely would be included. But, right now, they wouldn't be because of

the fact the statistics would be a couple of years old.

MR. J. DINN:

So I guess that information

on Stats Canada would be provided by the department. How would Stats Canada get

a hold of that information, I'm curious?

MR. GARDINER:

They would look for data

from the various departments across Canada in terms of the number of teachers,

the numbers of students, et cetera.

MR. J. DINN:

So is it at that time that

the department is intending to include the TLAs as part of the ratio? Will that

be factored into it since that information is to come?

MR. GARDINER:

That would be based on the

Stats Canada definition in terms of what they want to include in terms of

teachers. For example, student assistants would not be part of that ratio, but I

would suggest that teaching and learning assistants likely would be. I'd have to

confirm that, because we've never had them before, but based on other provinces

in terms of what they include and not. But that would again be based on the

Stats Canada definition in terms of what they want in and what they want out.

MR. J. DINN:

I also understand that TLAs,

reading specialists and learning resource teachers or teacher librarians are not

available to schools with less than a population of 50. Is that true?

MR. GARDINER:

Basically, based on the

recommendation from the task force report, they suggested that schools with 51

or greater would have reading specialist allocation of .5, and 200 and greater

would have a full-time reading specialist. They didn't reference any allocation

with respect to teaching and learning assistants for any of the schools.

Based

on the consultations and discussions with the phase-one schools, the 40

phase-one schools, it was recognized that in order for them to be able to do

what was expected – because the task force basically said that the duties of a

reading specialist and a TLA or extra teacher-librarians, would be taken over by

the instructional resource teachers at the school.

Recognizing that was probably a little ambitious for this first year – and will

carry into next year – there is an additional quarter unit of instructional

resource teacher assigned to those schools with 51 or less students that are on

phase one. Again, we'll carry that into phase two.

CHAIR:

Okay, the Member's time has

expired for this section. We'll move into further questions.

Mr.

Pardy.

MR. PARDY:

If I may, I just want to

follow up on the discussion we had previously. I think when it was stated about

schools are inconvenienced with the holdback practice, I know speaking from the

school experience that we had, it was more than an inconvenience. We always

looked at it educationally as a very negative factor in our programming and

delivery of the education within our school if we could not get a teacher that

was a specialist in the area that we were looking for.

It was

a drastic difference in trying to seek a specialist teacher in language or math

or science in September and October than what it was in May and June. Even

though the word “inconvenience” was used, I know where it's coming from and I

respect that, but I would think that in the system it is a negative impact, this

holdback practice.

The

TLAs, if their training in the two years somewhat relates to education, I would

say that it is not a teacher that were accustomed to, to have within the system,

that would be now packaged together. I would suggest that if the classes weren't

as high in numbers as what they are in a lot of them, the need for the TLAs may

not be as great.

If the

allocation was close to what Brian Shortall – and you can correct me if I'm

wrong. Was Brian the author of the Teacher Allocation Commission back in May

2007? But just to share what Brian Shortall came out and what he suggested:

Kindergarten, 18; grades one to three, 20; grades four to six, 23; grades seven

to 12 – I probably should change seven to nine because I know the intermediate

seven to nine was 25 students.

I'll go

to the question now but just to make the point on the holdback. I think

educators and assistants feel strongly on the holdback concept.

I'd

just like for the Chair to remind us now as to which

section we are. 3.1.01

still?

CHAIR:

Yes.

MR. PARDY:

Yes?

CHAIR:

Yes, we're all on the

section 3. Everything pertaining to 3 we can discuss.

MR. PARDY:

Fantastic.

Substitute teacher leave; it is the same as last year. Generally the same? I

know the NLTA had stated that I think the amount of sick leave by teachers has

risen. I didn't see that data but I was aware of the comment. I think, probably,

the genesis of the comment was stating that as the classes grow larger – I guess

they were equating sick leave with the stress of conducting the class in large

sizes. Would the department have data that would track the amount of sick leave

that would be in substitute teachers?

MR. WARR:

Yes, we would.

MR. PARDY:

Is it possible we can look at that for the past four or five years?

MR. WARR:

Yes.

MR. PARDY:

Okay, thank you.

I know

that in the Estimates last year the minister spoke quite a lot about the

importance of Professional Development and I think we would all concur. There's

$102,700 more budget this year than last year?

MR. WARR:

For Professional Development?

MR. PARDY:

Yes. Can you indicate as to what areas the Professional Development is for?

MR. WARR:

It's related to the Education Action Plan.

MR. PARDY:

Okay.

Are

there specific areas that we're focusing on in that education plan?

MR. WARR:

I'll refer that to Eldred.

MR. PARDY:

Okay.

MR. BARNES:

Yes, targeted primarily on the implementation of the responsive teaching and

learning, which is a new policy that's replacing the special education policy.

Also, those new entities, the reading specialists, TLAs, learning resource

teachers – because alongside the teacher librarians is a new learning commons

libraries approach. So the focus of most of the professional learning are in

these areas – the additional professional learning.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you, Eldred.

Just as

a point of clarification, I know we're talking about the TLAs and the teacher

librarian. I know that in a school system we always look at the teachers who are

leading the class as being the core group when we administer our professional

development within the school system. I'm sure that's still part of the picture,

the only thing is that we have the others included as well.

The

Employee Benefits, there was a large overrun of $2.3 million last year compared

to what was budgeted.

MR. WARR:

As a result of early

severance payouts.

MR. PARDY:

Okay.

In '02

the Revenue - Provincial; last year we had more revenue than was expected, yet

this year the budgeted revenue is the same. I wonder if you could explain as to

where the revenue comes from and why the increase?

MR. WARR:

Yeah, this account can be

highly variable as it mostly relates to repayments of prior year's expenses.

Revenue is recovered from payroll overpayments, teacher salary overpayments and

miscellaneous unit expenses repaid by school districts and teacher billings from

previous school years. The majority of these payments should have been received

early in the fiscal year but some still may come through EECD's unallocated

account.

MR. PARDY:

Would we have many

experiences of teacher payroll overpayment?

MR. WARR:

No.

MR. PARDY:

I had never heard of it

until now.

That

would conclude my questions for that section.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

Moving

on to Mr. Dinn, please.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you.

Just to

make sure I heard correctly, with regard to the schools that are less than 50,

did I understand that there would be some allotment for learning resource

teachers? I just want to make sure I heard exactly what was involved in that and

TLAs.

MR. WARR:

We'll defer to Bob Gardiner.

MR. GARDINER:

No, just to be clear, Jim,

the recommendation from the task force actually didn't have any recommendation

with respect to increased resourcing for schools with less than 51. Listening to

the administrators and staff from the 12 or 13 schools this year – so this would

have been last summer when we had them in – they expressed some concern with

respect to being able to move towards a new model, with the responsive teaching

and learning in particular that Eldred referenced, without the additional

resources.

The

decision was made for the phase-one schools – and, again, we'll carry it through

for the phase-two schools next year – that we would increase their instructional

resource teacher allocation by a quarter unit. The expectation then would be

that would help with the reading specialist and TLA duties, so to speak, but it

would be an increase of instructional resource teachers of a quarter unit.

MR. J. DINN:

So, to be clear, because the

report didn't recommend that they do get them. They made no comment on that.

They're not getting them. By way of compensation, they are instead getting an

increase in the IRTs, the instructional resource teacher allocation, is that how

I understand it?

More or

less, there's no increase of TLAs, library and learning resource teacher, or

TLAs for that matter, for schools less than 50; but, by way of compensation,

there was a recognition that they would instead get an increased allocation of

IRTs and that would make up for the lack of those resources. Is that how I

understand it?

MR. GARDINER:

That would be correct, Jim.

The thinking was if we were to allocate reading specialists or TLAs, you'd be

talking about 0.1 of this and 0.15 of something else and really it doesn't work.

So, the thinking was that with a quarter unit, and in many cases these schools

would already have maybe a half unit or three-quarters of a unit, so you would

increase the allocation by a quarter unit, which would help alleviate some of

the work that would be required.

MR. J. DINN:

So it is possible for a

small school to have a half unit of IRT and that would be increased by a quarter

unit?

MR. GARDINER:

That's correct.

MR. J. DINN:

Again, this is a common

problem, so you have a three-quarter unit, which it happens, you have these

fractional units in many of the small schools and that's the difficulty in

getting teachers there at all.

To me,

it would make better sense, especially since we're in the mode of adding

teachers as part of the Education Action Plan and then planning to do a review,

I would suggest it's just as well to make sure you have a full unit, not

fractions of units, and then worry about it after.

Either

that or do the review right now and find out what is needed. If it's zero-based

budgeting, I'm trying to figure out how you'd determine if a quarter of a unit

makes sense in the school and how that responds to the need. Because, in fact,

what you've done, is there has been a group of schools that has been totally

left out of the picture with regard to the Education Action Plan and, by way of

a Band-Aid solution, you're applying a quarter of a unit and really that's just

inadequate.

To me,

if you're planning to add teachers to the system by way of the Education Action

Plan and then possibly do a teacher allocation review, then I would suggest why

not do the same for the small schools. If it's unreasonable to add a fraction of

a TLA, a fraction of this, make sure that you have a full unit, that there are

no fractional units in a small school so that they can do the job properly, and

then do your review. I'm having trouble reconciling the two – just as a thought.

With

regard to sick leave – and I'm interested to pick up what my colleague said with

regard to sick leave. I'd also be interested in knowing, as well – I'm assuming

that the breakdown in leave would also capture the amount of leave that teachers

have taken as unpaid leave. Probably because of the fact that they've run out of

sick leave – and I'm talking about younger teachers here. That they run out of

sick leave and that they're probably actually on long-term disability or

availing of short-term disability.

Would

there be a capturing of the number of teachers who accessed unpaid leave,

related to sickness? I'm looking here at $31 million plus, almost $32 million.

MR. WARR:

That wouldn't be included.

MR. J. DINN:

That would be included?

MR. WARR:

Wouldn't be.

MR. J. DINN:

So if a teacher takes unpaid leave, if it's short term, that wouldn't be

captured there, because there'd still be a substitute that would be required to

fill in for them?

MR. WARR:

Yes, we're not paying the teacher's salary is what it is, Jim.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay. So there's no way of capturing, really, the effect of just – if they're on

sick leave, that would be captured there in that number, correct?

MR. WARR:

Yes, it would.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

MR. WARR:

Yes.

MR. J. DINN:

But if that teacher uses up his or her sick leave – and I'm thinking about

younger teachers here, those who started teaching since 2006 – if they end up

exhausting their sick leave and they're forced then to go on some sort of unpaid

leave, that would not be captured in that.

MR. WARR:

No.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

Right

now, how many full-time learning resource teachers are there in the province, or

a school has a full-time learning resource teacher – not fraction, but how many

schools actually have a full-time learning resource teacher? I know that Holy

Heart, for example, did when I went there, long before this Education Action

Plan. I'm trying to get an idea of the number of schools that have a full-time

learning resource teacher.

MR. WARR:

We allocate to the district, Jim, and they deploy the units.

MR. J. DINN:

Is there any way of finding that out from the department? I'm assuming that if

the department asked the district, they would be able to tell them. I can think

of a few schools offhand, but I also think of a number of schools where a

teacher has, in the run of a week, a period. I'm just trying to think how that's

going to actually help make the Education Action Plan work. I would like to get

an idea of just the number of schools there that actually have a full-time

learning resource teacher.

MR. WARR:

We'll get that information

for you.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you very much.

Onward

and forward then to 3.1.02, I think I have looked at that one. With regard to

Purchased Services, there was a significant overrun in 2018-2019 by some

$602,000 but I notice that this year the budget amount is actually $100,000 less

than what was originally budgeted for in 2018-2019. I'm just wondering the

reason why.

MR. WARR:

With regard to the $100,000,

insurance premiums for property and liability were renewed at a lower rate and

reprofiled to regular operating grants.

MR. J. DINN:

And that's insurance for the

schools and building?

MR. WARR:

Yes.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

With

Allowances and Assistance, I'm looking here at a decrease of $15,000. How many

students got bursaries to attend school away from home in 2018? There's a

significant decrease there.

MR. WARR:

We'll get that information

for you.

MR. J. DINN:

Perfect, thank you very

much.

Grants

and Subsidies, why the overruns in the Operating Grant and Student Assistants

grants in 2018? I noticed that there was a significant increase there and a

decrease this year.

MR. WARR:

With regard to the increase, it was pay out of severance as a result of the new

collective agreement; that was just under $11 million. Savings resulting from

delay in some components of the teacher professional learning for the Education

Action Plan was actually $352,000. Cost of severance payout for executive,

management and non-bargaining, non-management staff was just over $2 million.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you.

One

last question: I'm just trying to understand, with regard to Student Assistants,

in determining the student assistants, the numbers that are needed – how do you

go about budgeting for that or determining that?

MR. WARR:

Can you just repeat that question?

MR. J. DINN:

Sorry. In 3.1.02, Student Assistants, I notice there was an increase in

2018-2019 and then there was an increase of $300,000 for this year. I'm just

wondering: How is the budget of student assistants determined? You're looking at

Student Assistants.

MR. WARR:

With regard to the $5,346,400, it was a payout of severance as a result of the

new collective agreement. The extra $300,000 was additional hours that were

added.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

I'll

come back to that. Thank you.

CHAIR:

Okay, the Member's time has

expired.

We'll

move on now to the next speaker if you have any further questions.

Mr.

Pardy.

MR. PARDY:

Three hundred extra hours added? Sorry, I missed that.

MR. WARR:

No, that was $300,000.

MR. PARDY:

Oh, $300,000.

MR. WARR:

In Budget 2019-2020 there was an extra $300,000 and that was for additional

hours.

MR. PARDY:

Just on the student assistants, in no way the TLAs in their role would have

anything to do with the student assistants? They're totally exclusive to each

other and will remain?

MR. WARR:

Yes.

MR. PARDY:

Good.

MR. WARR:

That's correct.

MR. PARDY:

Yes, I expected such.

Just to

follow up on what my colleague stated – the fractional and staffing. As far as

working in a school, you create a timetable and you have a teacher for a quarter

time. But sometimes that quarter doesn't fit the span of the timetable and you

can't expect people to spend a full day on a

schedule when you have created your

timetable.

It's

hard to create a timetable and structure it to capture one-quarter of the day

where you have a quarter of a unit so, really, they're restricted in how they

can be utilized. I know that it's probably easier said than done, the full unit

concept which speaks volumes, but I would concur that in small schools to

eliminate the fractional units.

School

Board Operations – the question I was going to ask earlier, I know that the

Auditor General in September 2018 said there was widespread misuse of funds.

Without going through what was listed, or I think may have come out in the

media, there was inappropriate usage of funds. What measures have we taken, as a

department, to make sure that would never occur again? I know there was a budget

submission, I think, that they had made and there was an action plan? I'm just

wondering if you can speak to that to assure the taxpayers that it ought never

happen again.

MR. WARR:

With regard to that, I mean

the school board continues to implement actions and provide a full update and

report to the Public Accounts Committee. We continue to explore cost-effective

ways to improve the district's financial processes, such as integrating them

into government's core financial management system under a shared-services

model.

Government's current system has the capacity to address a number of issues

identified with the district, for example: centralized purchasing, accounts

payable, including quality controls, inventory control and asset management.

MR. PARDY:

Any purchases made through

the school board will circulate and find its way through the department

somewhere?

MR. WARR:

Eventually, yes.

MR. PARDY:

Okay.

If I

may just make one quick comment on the student assistants, I know in the school

system if we didn't have the student assistants – and the amount of time we had

to deploy a teacher or we had to deploy an administrator. There are times that

we would have to go in where there was a lapse of a student assistant.

I think

sometimes we might miss that when a school puts in an application; remember they

may all need to be scrutinized. I'm fully aware of that but I know sometimes in

the absence of a student assistant, there's a cascading effect where other staff

members, teachers, have to step in there to fulfill that need in the absence of

a student assistant.

Transportation of School Children; last year there was a million dollars less

spent on school busing compared to what was budgeted.

MR. WARR:

Yes, the cost of tendering

to replace expiring contracts were lower than anticipated at the time the budget

was prepared.

MR. PARDY:

We have a scattered weather

day in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In that event, does the busing

contractor still get paid for those days where the buses do not run?

MR. WARR:

Yes, they do. It's part of

their contract.

MR. PARDY:

Yes. Is there any limitation

as to, say, a school that misses 14 days or 16 days of school where it's closed,

that that's consistent?

MR. WARR:

Yes.

MR. PARDY:

Okay.

I know

that we had discussion in the House at one time on efficiencies and I look at

that. I'm not sure, I'm probably overextending my reach now, but I know that if

I were doing it privately I would look at that and say that may not be – and it

may be an area where efficiencies may be able to reach in the future because we

have more than a scattered day where the system doesn't run; take a school with

14 buses that would be running.

Those

areas on the 1.6 busing, the cut-off, they seem to be very significant in

certain areas. Not in all areas. I would say the District of Bonavista is not.

There are areas where we have parents, schools and representatives lobbying for

the 1.6 to be reduced.

What

scenarios have the department modelled regarding the 1.6-kilometre busing issue

and if you can give us the analysis. Is there anything that was done? I know you

mentioned the courtesy busing. We've used courtesy busing, I think, more than

probably across Canada or up there, but in these contentious areas, can the

department look at those areas which stand out?

MR. WARR:

I think the department's

messaging on that has been consistent. If there are areas of concern, bring them

to the department and we'll certainly deal with it. I have said that many times,

I'm sure, as did other officials.

Again,

we have 649 courtesy stops implemented to date and that's an increase I think.

When we started last September we were somewhere around 70. Again, busing of

school children is – their safety is paramount to us. If there's a concern,

bring it to the department.

MR. PARDY:

That's fair. Thank you.

Seventy

last September and now we're at 649?

MR. WARR:

Yeah, 649.

MR. PARDY:

If we could move on to

3.1.03.

CHAIR:

Yeah, the whole

section of 3

is fair game.

MR. PARDY:

Good stuff. I missed that

before.

Can you

explain the mandate of the Learning Resources Distribution Centre, what it would

be? It might be pretty basic but I just –

MR. WARR:

I'll defer that to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

Basically, the Learning

Resources Distribution Centre is a warehouse down in Pleasantville. For all

intents and purposes, it receives goods and then ships them out to schools. So

textbooks would be the primary piece, but anything that's purchased by the

department to be shipped to schools would be funnelled through the LRDC in

Pleasantville.

MR. PARDY:

Okay, good. Thank you.

3.1.04,

School Supplies, Transportation and Communications – $8,400 less was spent last

year compared to what was budgeted.

MR. WARR:

It's the result of shipping expenses related to school supplies was lower than

anticipated.

MR. PARDY:

No change in the allocation of school supplies? Now, say, if you got a drop of

1,000 students each year, maybe conceivably there's going to be a drop, and that

would reflect that. But whatever school supplies they were entitled to would be

the same.

MR. WARR:

Actually, when you look at Supplies, it's up $400,000. It was as a result of

increased funding for reading resources related to the Education Action Plan.

MR. PARDY:

Okay.

MR. WARR:

And that was for social and emotional learning material.

MR. PARDY:

Was it mentioned earlier that the Arts and Culture Strategy was transferred to

AESL? No? That would still be, I guess, part of the supply network.

MR. WARR:

I'll defer that to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

No, the thing that was moved to AESL was the youth intern program, which was a

federal program which changed its mandate to Digital Skills for Youth, so it

better fit under the Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour. The

money that was in our budget as federal revenue now would show up in AESL's.

That was youth interns.

MR. PARDY:

Good, thank you.

I think

my time is up. I defer.

CHAIR:

Yes.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you very much.

I just

want to pick up with regard to 3.1.02, the Student Assistants budget line of

$23,536,600. I'm just curious – again, where I was going with this when I ran

out of time is: How is that budget line determined? How do you determine the

number of student assistants that are needed? Where does that come from?

MR. WARR:

Consultations with the school district. It's based on need.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay. And that's what I was curious about. Because I have here information that

basically in 2018 – and this is where I'm trying to go, and I'll be upfront. I'm

being critical because I come from a teaching background and as former president

of the Teachers' Association where I didn't see a whole lot of needs-based

allocations going on, and I will be critical of that.

2018, the NLESD program specialist for student support services assessing

student profile information from the schools determined that required hours for

something about 4,002 hours per day for September 2018. The NLESD allocated

3,583.5 hours per day. That was a shortfall of about 418 hours per day less than

the documented needs.

Eventually, I know that the NLTA did raise concerns and it was reinstated 100

hours per day, but that still falls short. I say this because when I was

president of the Teachers' Association, I ran into countless examples – and I'm

sure Mr. Pardy can verify this – where the needs of the children were not being

met and it took often the threat of going public – and the board had no money,

but usually it had to go to the department who held the purse strings.

I've

been trying to get some idea if indeed, in 2018, the district gave the numbers,

why the budget for that line was so much less. Obviously, the consultation

process seems to be breaking down. We're introducing the new Education Action

Plan and I would submit that there's a world of difference between what's put

forward and the reality in the school system. I found that out through my 32

years of teaching and my four years as president, big time.

I'm

just trying to get an idea, this year, is it indeed based on that and why the

shortfall again in 2018 that there were 418 hours per day in the school system

that were not being addressed.

If you

don't have the answer to that, Minister, that's fine but I would like something

going on here. I can tell you from my own experience in teaching that was the

case, and my four years as president of the Teachers' Association, province

wide, that was the case.

MR. WARR:

The only point I'll make,

Jim, is the fact that it's a yearly discussion and there was $300,000 increase

this year.

MR. J. DINN:

So my question, then, if there's a $300,000 increase, if I were to go to the

district and put through an ATIPP request will I find, in fact, that the

recommendation of the district, the needs of the district are now being met, or

will there be a shortfall. That is going to be the question.

I would

assume, then, that you would have that information as to what the district has

pointed out. Without having to go through that, I'm trying to figure out, right

now, will that $300,000 meet the needs as determined by the program specialists

at the district, by the experts who are there to assess the needs of children or

will I find a shortfall? That's what I really want to know. If it happened in

2018, I'm concerned it's going to happen again this year.

MR. WARR:

Certainly that'll be determined in September.

MR. J. DINN:

Am I to understand, then, that the district has had no discussions as to what

their needs will be in September? Usually those assessments would be done by

now. I'm trying to get an idea. Like, they don't wait until September to say,

oh, we need this. My knowledge of IRTs and program specialists, that would be

done in advance of the budget. Here are the needs we're going to need next year.

Certainly, that was my experience in the school system.

So I

would like to know, basically, if there's a shortfall, and how much of a

shortfall with regard –

MR. WARR:

I'll get that information for you.

MR. J. DINN:

I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

So with

regard to transportation of schoolchildren – actually, before I go on to that.

With the new NLESD, the building it's currently in, is that a building that it

has bought, or is that a building that it has leased?

MR. WARR:

TW would own that building.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay. TW? Is the board paying a lease to TW?

MR. WARR:

No.

MR. J. DINN:

No?

MR. WARR:

No.

MR. J. DINN:

And that's the current building there on – make sure we're talking about the

same one, the old Johnson's building on Elizabeth Avenue? Okay.

So who

pays insurance on that?

MR. WARR:

That would be a part of government's insurance.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay, so government does pay an insurance company on that.

With

regard to last year's account – and I can't find the line in it this year –

there was a line called Administration Grant, which Ms. Michael referred to a

$650,000-plus savings. Mr. Kirby, the minister at the time, indicated that there

was savings due to hiring in-house legal counsel.

Where

would I find, with regard to the legal services by the district, in what line?

Because there doesn't appear to be any administration grant listed here in the

heading. I'm just trying to get an idea; where would that be accounted for,

legal services?

MR. WARR:

It's rolled into the

operating grant.

MR. J. DINN:

Has there been any

indication as to what the legal services – they saved $600,000, almost a

million. Well, $650,000 last year. I'm just wondering what the legal bills were

this year.

MR. WARR:

You'd have to ask them. We

wouldn't know that.

MR. J. DINN:

However, the answers seemed

to be supplied by Mr. Kirby last year. He was able to indicate that there were

savings, so I'm just curious. Actually, there was some discussion that basically

government was dealing with using that service as well. Maybe I misread that.

But, with regard to the department, do you use an in-house legal services or do

you contract out?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer that to Bob.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

MR. GARDINER:

Two different things, Jim.

The department itself would use its solicitor from Justice and Public Safety

that would be assigned to us. So everything for us would be in-house.

terms of the school district, in the previous budget they actually were

expending $600,000, $650,000 on legal fees. They actually submitted a proposal

whereby they would hire in-house legal, similar to the college and the

university, and then they would need to contract out less legal services.

So,

basically, it was a reduction from $650,000 required for legal services – they

reduced that by, I think, $200,000, $250,000 because now they have an in-house

legal representative. Obviously, with legal there are certain levels of

expertise on different files. So they still do need to avail of external legal

advice but they certainly reduced their costs by hiring an in-house legal.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you very much.

I know

the association, NLTA, basically has it in a contract. Their services go up,

there's a base amount. Actually, it saves the association in the long run as

opposed to paying on a contract out for legal service. I suggested that to

Minister Byrne as well, that maybe that's an idea for government to look at that

as opposed to paying on a case by case. There could be a savings there.

With

regard to revenue, has there been any revenue realized from the sale of school

property? Or has that mostly gone to maybe the denominations that own the land?

I'm thinking of a number of school sites that were owned. Has there been any

revenue realized as a result of that?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer that to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

The short answer is yes. In many cases, when the school board is disposing of

school properties there is a denominational interest, and then they need to work

out the details in terms of what funds are realized by the denomination versus

the school district.

recent past in the city itself, Booth and Bishops in particular were sold by the

school district. The funds realized from those sales are currently with the

school district. The minister has to give approval for the sale of the

properties, and when the sale goes through the district holds the money. Then

that money will be spent typically for educational purposes, but with the

ministerial permission.

In many

cases, the school district will dispose of properties simply by turning it over

to a municipality or a local charitable organization and there would be very

little realized in terms of a sale.

CHAIR:

Okay. The Member's time has

expired.

At this

time now we're going to take a quick bathroom break. So say about five minutes,

five or 10 minutes we can return. Okay?

OFFICIAL:

Yes.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Thank

you.

Recess

CHAIR:

Okay, we can resume.

We're

still in

section 3. Mr. Dinn was the last speaker so now we'll move to Mr.

Pardy.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

couple of questions or points in 3.1.03, it's just related; I don't think it's

anything specific. I realize the tangle with the sale of schools or property in

relation to the denominational system. I'm assuming we'll wean through that

eventually, that it will no longer be property that will be tied in with the

denominational system. But I'm surprised that we don't have an agreement in

moving forward that when the school does become open that we can have a process

that may be able to use a shorter period of time.

When I

think about it, I look at the Clarenville primary school; I mentioned 10 years.

I realize it's not straightforward, but if you look at 10 years it's an awful

long time to be in a – so if we looked at the figures of what we get in return

of the sale of these buildings, I would assume that it would be a small amount.

That's not a question, just a point.

Is it

conceivable that the school district, when they apply the student assistants and

they apply it on needs to the school district, would they expend all their

budget that would be provided for them? Is there ever an occasion where they do

not expend their entire budget that is passed on from the government?

Why I

ask that, just as a clarification I know that if what we do with the holdback,

if ever that practice is utilized for the student assistants, I can see that at

the end you'll find that you have a large, or maybe some, that may not be

expended because of that holdback necessity or mentality. Would there be a case

where the budget wasn't spent on student assistants by the school district?

MR. WARR:

Not typically.

I'll

defer the question to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

In terms of student

assistants and their pay, there's no holdback for student assistants. They get

paid an hourly rate and then at the end of the school year, actually, I think

they're laid off and then get rehired in September. Unlike teachers that would,

as you would know, have holdback during the summer.

MR. PARDY:

No, I'm sorry, I wasn't

clear on the question. My apologies.

MR. GARDINER:

Oh sorry.

MR. PARDY:

When they deploy the student

assistants – I'm sure that holdback principle, like they do with the teachers,

not wanting to use them all up so in case of an emergency or a need that arises

down, if they followed that same practice. If they did for student assistants,

I'm just wondering at times do they have a capacity that wasn't expended that

you might have afforded them, but through that holdback provision they may not

have expended it.

MR. GARDINER:

Unlike teachers, whereby the

school district has to assign teachers or can't change a teaching assignment

past May 7, with student assistants it's a little more fluid. They actually

budget differently for student assistants. Likely, there would be some holdback

in September, October, but they keep an eye on the budget and they typically

spend all the allocated funds in the fiscal year.

MR. PARDY:

Okay. Thank you very much.

I'd

like to move on to 3.2.01.

CHAIR:

Yeah, I'll agree. Go ahead.

MR. PARDY:

Good?

CHAIR:

Yeah.

MR. PARDY:

Curriculum Development; a

question with a little bit of

preamble. Is there an initiative to change the way

we develop curriculum and roll it out to schools? We always contended in the

schools that sometimes when we receive curriculum it is outdated, and we know

how fast change occurs.

I'm

just wondering: Is there any vision to do it differently, like electronically,

that would be more current? I spoke before. I think of the intermediate health

curriculum and the resource we used was back in '93. I know that curriculum

guides direct instruction. I know that, it's the curriculum guides that we

follow, but I know that there are a lot of people who really adhere and they

teach to the text.

I'm

just wondering: Is there any vision to do curriculum different or development

differently and to roll it out?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

As you're aware, the

curriculum development process is typically a two- to three-year process that

involves many committees of teachers from a variety of different backgrounds. To

your point, yes, we are looking at – early stages – alternative methods for

curriculum development and curriculum itself.

We've

actually had a couple of good discussions with Alberta, who is moving forward

with a program which basically digitizes the curriculum. Again, they've been

exploring this option over the past couple of years and we have had a couple of

discussions with Alberta in terms of how that's working out for them and if we

can actually become part of that program. So, the short answer is, yes, we are

looking at that.

MR. PARDY:

To be commended for that

initiative. I'm pleased to hear.

Salaries, 01, last year the department had an overrun of $68,600.

MR. WARR:

That's as a result of

severance payout related to two positions.

MR. PARDY:

Once we were on Program

Development, if I looked at the active staff, am I correct in stating that of

six potential program development specialists, and all were denoted P, that we

have two currently? That there are four not filled?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

Basically, those positions

are filled. The reason why it's showing up as zero dollars is because they are

actually seconded teachers. So they are coming from teacher payroll as opposed

to civil payroll. When that report is run, it runs off civil payroll. They're

not captured in that particular extract, but they are filled positions.

MR. PARDY:

Okay, good.

Thank

you.

The

Estimates last year spoke to a greater need for professional learning. I think

the minister had stated that several times throughout. He referenced the new

special services model. I think he might have referenced that sometimes it takes

10 years but this time it's going to be three years.

Where

can this greater professional development be demonstrated in our budget? When he

said it's usually 10 years and now it's three, where would that be found in this

budget? And I'm sorry if I got you jumping around.

MR. WARR:

I'll defer that to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

The reference to three years

would be the phase in of the Education Action Plan. Again, we're in year one

right now where we have 40 schools on phase one. Next year that will increase to

80 schools, and then year three would be full implementation.

There

are a bunch of moving parts here in terms of professional learning, and it can

be found throughout the Estimates document. In particular, 3.1.01 where we have

substitute teachers, professional development – 3.1.01. There's almost a $5.5

million budget, and there are a number of other spots through the Estimates

document that would have portions of that.

Last

year there was an extra $1.9 million allocated for professional learning, and

that's also in the budget this year. So they're over and above the normal

professional development budget that would have occurred in previous years.

There's an additional $1.9 million that was in budget '18-'19.

MR. PARDY:

Okay. And 3.1.01, Bob,

you're saying in which category would that be subsumed in?

MR. GARDINER:

Substitute Teachers -

Professional Development.

MR. PARDY:

Okay.

MR. GARDINER:

Then there are other

sprinkling of funds from Transportation and Communications for travel for

teachers to get the professional development and some substitute money as well,

but that's the bulk of it there.

MR. PARDY:

Good.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Okay. We're moving on.

Mr.

Dinn.

MR. J. DINN:

I just want to follow up with a few last questions going back to 3.1.01. I know

it was mentioned there, it might have been 3.1.02 actually, with regard to the

sale of property.

Is it

possible to have a list of what those sales were, whether it was in the last

year, since it started? It's certainly going back a couple of years. Anyway, I'm

just curious as to what the value of the land was and the money received. If

that's possible.

MR. WARR:

We should be able to get

that for you, Mr. Dinn.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you very much, Sir.

With

regard to leave, and I'm looking in terms of substitute teachers, professional

development, and that's leave for professional development. I don't know if

you're aware of it, but on June 3 a memo did go out from the NLTA to its members

School District announced its decision to discontinue the district's

long-standing practice of approving additional professional development days

during the school year over and above the minimum number of days provided in

article 28 of the provincial collective agreement.

Has

there been any discussion between the department and the district regarding this

decision and how it would impact professional development for teachers?

MR. WARR:

No, there hasn't. Obviously,

the district would have to deal with that, but there has been no consultations

between the department and the district.

MR. J. DINN:

My concern was in terms of

morale and the ability then to carry out the leave for the Education Action Plan

is how that might impact that, there would be a concern there.

With

would that be? Would that be in the Operating Grant, that line now?

MR. WARR:

Yes.

MR. J. DINN:

Has there been any

indication of the amount that goes towards – that is allocated, budgeted for

that?

I know

that would be in the district, but at one time it would have been with the

department. I'm trying to ascertain if the budget has increased, decreased or

stayed the same.

MR. WARR:

It's at the district's

discretion.

MR. J. DINN:

So there's no indication

whether they've limited, reduced it or increased it?

MR. WARR:

No.

MR. J. DINN:

And the department would

have no say in that. Okay.

I don't

know if this is quite the right place to deal with it, School Board Operations,

but I'm looking at junior kindergarten. We were going to debate it at some point

but it's been postponed; a private Member's resolution on junior kindergarten.

I'm

just curious, with the introduction of junior kindergarten, has there been

consideration given to space? Where that would be, where that budget would come

from. Would it be out of works, services and transportation, the district, or

would it come from the department?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

With respect to junior

kindergarten, as you know, the task force recommended a phase-in approach

recognizing that the infrastructure would not necessarily exist in all places,

and then tasked the department with doing some consultants and producing a

report this year with a plan for a phased-in approach for junior kindergarten.

So we

haven't had the infrastructure discussion, as we are waiting for the release of

their report on a plan for a phase in of junior kindergarten, similar to – as

you know, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Northwest Territories have moved forward with

a junior kindergarten plan and they all have a varying – while similar, but

varying implementation plans. So we would expect our plan for a phase in of

junior kindergarten to be released shortly.

MR. J. DINN:

If I may follow up on that, Chair.

With

regard to the phase in and the consultation report, is there – a few questions.

First of all, are we looking at the phase in then to go with the schools that

have space available that may be small schools or rural schools where their

population is such that there's more space than students? I'm trying to get an

idea.

Also,

will that infrastructure be in place before the children actually end up in the

place? I ask that last question because the phasing in of kindergarten was less

than ideal, and certainly from the schools I visited that the public perception

of how kindergarten was phased in was vastly different from the reality in the

school system where there was a significant overcrowding, and space issues were

there.

I found

it worked well in some of the smaller schools outside where the class size was

smaller but in large, urban schools and larger centres that was a significant

challenge where you actually had doubling up of classes in some cases, two

teachers in a classroom, but it didn't make it any less stressful. I'm just

curious as to what the plans are, or is there an attempt as we phase in to use

the existing space and make it work?

MR. GARDINER:

That's a good point, Jim.

And the task force recognized that the implementation of full-day kindergarten

wasn't a phase in and some of the challenges that – while a good thing, but

still some of the challenges that it presented, hence, they recommend a phase in

of junior kindergarten.

terms of what that would look like, again, the analysis is being done and we

would expect a report shortly. So, I wouldn't want to prejudge what the report

will recommend but we will have that report very shortly.

MR. J. DINN:

If I may follow up on that

again, with regard to the staffing of junior kindergarten, teachers, early

childhood educators, how will that be done?

MR. GARDINER:

Again, Jim, that's to be

determined based on the report that will be released. Nova Scotia, Ontario and

Northwest Territories have varying models in terms of, is it a combination of

early childhood educators with a certified teacher in the same classroom or is

it just a certified teacher. Again, in terms of the model that we will be

looking at, that's to be determined.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you.

concern with it, of course, is I would support junior kindergarten and the

adequate resourcing of it. My concern and the concern of a lot of teachers is

what happened with full-day kindergarten, it was implemented, 142 new teaching

positions were created, but 204-some odd teachers were removed from the rest of

the system to pay for it.

I guess

my concern here is that if indeed the resourcing of the junior kindergarten is

going to come at the expense of the rest of the system as it did in 2016, I

would recommend, please, that if you're going to phase this in that it come at

it quickly resourced and not be on the back of the rest of the system.

With

regard to 3.1.03 – actually, I'm going to move on here. I don't see anything

right there.

And

3.1.04, and I think here part of the service has to do with the school supplies,

distribution of textbooks and instructional materials. Part of that, I would

assume then, would be for supplies such as full-day kindergarten, correct?

MR. WARR:

Yes.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

I'd be

curious as to – I'm assuming now, I would like to believe, I would hope that all

full-day kindergarten classes are fully resourced. Again, I go from my

experiences, NLTA experience, that when the minister was stating the schools

were fully resourced that, in fact, was not the case.

What

about replacement? What are we looking at in terms of – we had supplies of some

$6.5 million. I'm assuming that's where that's coming from. I'm just curious as

to how much of that budget line is for replacement of full-day kindergarten,

furniture, wear and tear and such like.

MR. WARR:

We don't have that

information available to us, Mr. Dinn, but we'll get that for you.

MR. J. DINN:

How much of that would be –

I don't know if it would fit in here – for curriculum materials? If you might

remember at the time, too, when I was president the minister made the comment

that part of the strategy of the Department of Education was to have teachers

scrounge for supplies. I know that in some of the books themselves they relied

heavily on getting some rather complicated materials from parents and so on and

so forth.

I'm

just curious, I would like a breakdown for the science programs and so on and so

forth as to what's being provided. If there's a breakdown of that material,

please.

I would

assume also, for the junior kindergarten when it does come in, that it would

come from this budget as well. If and when junior kindergarten does come in, the

money for supplies will come from under 3.1.04?

MR. WARR:

Yes.

MR. J. DINN:

Perfect.

CHAIR:

Okay. The Member's time has

expired.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Just a reminder, if we could

go line by line within the subheads, in the interest of time. We're due to

finish up at 12; however, obviously, the department will accommodate questions

as best as possible but staff have to clear the House. Just if we could please

keep that in mind.

Okay.

Mr. Pardy.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The new

special education policy, 3.3.01, I guess is the category. Can you update us as

to where things are with that new policy?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer that to Eldred.

MR. BARNES:

The new policy is being

phased in. This past year, 40 schools – 39 from the NLESD and one from the CSFP,

the francophone school board – participated. The new policy is in draft form.

We're learning from the feedback that has been provided, and quite positive to

date. We'll be expanding into the next 40 schools in the upcoming school year

and then for full implementation in year three.

Alongside the policy, of course, is the additional resources and the support so

that we separate – which was one of the recommendations of the Premier's Task

Force – reading issues from special education issues. So, the infusion of the

reading specialist at the school level is poised to support the responsive

teaching and learning, and so are the TLAs by providing supports to the

classroom teachers so they can spend more time providing direct instruction; in

addition, the support for student engagement and literacy development through

the library learning commons and the infusion of extra teacher librarians.

that's all part of that and it's moving forward, a phased-in approach, and we'll

be entering phase two in September.

MR. PARDY:

Eldred, can I ask who

provides the feedback? Feedback has been generally positive, but would it be the

special education teachers?

MR. BARNES:

Feedback comes from – yeah –

all levels, because there's opportunity for the classroom teacher, there's

opportunity for the school administration, there's opportunity for other

personnel within the school, guidance counsellors and so on to provide the

feedback. So we anticipate the policy will go through two more iterations before

it is finalized in response to the feedback.

MR. PARDY:

Yes. How extensive is the

feedback? You got 40 schools.

MR. BARNES:

Forty schools this year

providing –

MR. PARDY:

Every school would supply

the feedback?

MR. BARNES:

Yes. That's correct.

MR. PARDY:

Fantastic.

Thank

you.

I know

there was reference in last year's Estimates to the Health-in-All Policies, and

I think it referenced the secretariat. The comment may have been made: it's not

going to happen tomorrow but it's well underway. One year later, I'm just

wondering, has it evolved as we would like it to have? Then, would it be the

data you would look at to see how many children in Newfoundland and Labrador

would have had access to –

MR. WARR:

I'll defer that to Bob –

Eldred, sorry.

MR. BARNES:

If you're referring to

Recommendation 19 that calls for a secretariat within Executive Council –

MR. PARDY:

Yeah.

MR. BARNES:

– that has been established, and what that is composed of is the assistant

deputy ministers from across the Departments of Health and Community Services,

CSSD, Children, Seniors and Social Development, Justice and Public Safety,

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour and, of course, Education. They are

monitoring the progress in areas that A, B, C, D and E that's outlined in

Recommendation 19, primarily looking at the implementation of comprehensive

school health and the support for it in the years to come as outlined by the

timelines of the Education Action Plan.

Also

moving forward with a new model for child health services, looking at the

resources of both the school districts and Health and Community Services. In

addition to that, it's resurrecting, revitalizing and renewing the ISSP process

which is an individual student support plan within the coordination of services

to children and youth. That's well underway.

Then,

of course, monitoring the implementation of those recommendations within the

Towards Recovery report on mental

health, particularly those that are applicable to school-aged children. Part of

that initiative, of course, is building an additional pillar into primary,

elementary and hopefully kindergarten through grade 12 for time of social and

emotional learning.

MR. PARDY:

Eldred, is it possible to

respond in a short – when you say revitalizing the ISSP process what do you

mean? Is it a different process than what I would have been used to?

MR. BARNES:

It will be hopefully a

simpler process where the time hopefully will be targeted to less completion of

forms, more direct intervention. That's the goal, of course, and the goal to

make sure that there is timely intervention by the most appropriate individuals.

It's not people showing up for meetings for the sake of showing up for meetings

and records, it is who is required at this point in time and let's get the

service as quickly as possible, which is part of looking at early intervention

and the transitions part of Recommendation 1 and the response of teaching and

learning policy.

MR. PARDY:

Good news and it's

comforting to hear. That's good.

If I

may ask about a program that I'm not really familiar, it's the PASS program, the

Positive Actions for Student Success. If I'm not mistaken, we have 12 of these

SS teachers now engaged in the province. I'm assuming they don't come under –

would they be under the teacher allocation formula that we discussed earlier

because they would, in fact, be in the schools or would they not?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer that to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

The past teachers – and

you're right, there are 12 of them currently in the system – while they would

not be part of the teacher allocation recommendations from Shortall in 2008 they

are currently part of the teacher allocation model. Each year the district would

be allocated, in this case, 12 of those teachers.

MR. PARDY:

I'm assuming the allocation

of these teachers is based on need.

MR. GARDINER:

That would be correct, at

the discretion of the district in terms of where they would be deployed.

MR. PARDY:

Okay.

there a cap of what the department is going to provide the school districts?

Just say Leo Burke in Bishop's Falls is in need and feels that they ought to

have one of these SS teachers. If they did, then they have to demonstrate the

need.

MR. GARDINER:

The short answer to that is

it would be the district that determines where the SS teachers are placed. The

department allocates 12 units specifically for the past program. That said, as

part of the teacher allocation model and the allocation of teachers to the

district, while we do adhere to class caps and ratios for guidance counsellors

and other teaching professionals, there is an allocation to the district that

they will use at their discretion, what I refer to as a needs-based allocation.

So,

once we get past the allocation formula per se, which is based on ratios and

caps and so on, then the district also has an allocation that it can use at its

discretion, again, needs based. For example, currently the allocation – this is

a good example – of guidance counsellors is one to 500. We would have allocated

to the district a number of guidance counsellors, about 130, based on 65,000

students. However, if you look at the deployment of guidance counsellors, it's

probably closer to 180 guidance counsellors currently in our system because the

district sees fit that the needs are greater than the one to 500 in some cases,

so they actually allocate additional resources to the guidance. They would have

the latitude to again do the same thing for the PASS program.

MR. PARDY:

I think there are two of

those SS teachers deployed in Central but, again, that rests solely with the

district.

MR. GARDINER:

Correct.

MR. PARDY:

Good. Thank you.

If I

may go on to 3.4.01 – and I'm going to have to come back to this one because I'm

looking at my time – we've reduced our CRTs administration from my time to

current? I would assume the administration of CRTs now is much less than what it

was back six or seven years ago. Would I be correct in that?

MR. WARR:

I defer to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

Basically, two of the

recommendations from the task force report were for us to cancel the CRTs as we

know them today and do a review such that we implement new provincial

assessments more in line with the Pan-Canadian Assessment Program and the

Programme for International Student Assessment, PCAP and PISA. That review has

happened. There were no CRTs or provincial assessments this year or last year,

but we will be looking at implementing a new provincial assessment model

starting next school year.

MR. PARDY:

At the end of each division, again, chances are.

MR. GARDINER:

This would be three, six and nine.

MR. PARDY:

Good.

Thank

you.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This

same question I had might focus on 3.1.04, but it might take in a few others.

It's not a specific line but I'm interested with regard to the social and

emotional learning and how that will be implemented. What does it consist of in

terms of, I'm assuming, in Curriculum Development and Supplies? Any indication

on that?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer to Eldred.

MR. BARNES:

Yes, social and emotional learning gets at looking at not just the behaviours,

but the skill development in the early years in the various areas of respectful

relationships and building relationships, self-regulation, self-management and

that whole area. That is at the heart of the social and emotional learning and

what has taken place over the last couple of years within the Department of

Education is taking a look at curriculum.

Right

now, we're focused on the early years of K to three, going on to four to six,

but looking at opportunities within the health curriculum and then across the

curriculum to support so that we're not adding more content to the K-to-six

curriculum, but simply shifting the focus of the content to be actually social

and emotional learning. And building that as one of the pillars alongside

numeracy and literacy in the early years.

That

look at curriculum has been completed. Resources are in place to support the

teacher in the skill development piece of it at the primary grades and now we're

ready to launch within the phase-one schools. They have taken on the responsive

teaching and learning policy this year and some other aspects, and next year

they will begin at kindergarten and grade one to infuse social and emotional

learning within the curriculum and across the curriculum.

course, there will be professional learning that was actually launched this

spring. That will be supported throughout the school year in the 40 phase-one

schools and then learning from that to be able to move to the broader supports

in the next 40 schools and on to full implementation.

MR. J. DINN:

If I may, just with regard to that, so we're looking at, as I understand, using

cross-curriculum; in other words, where it can be slotted in as such. It's not a

matter of a specific course on social and emotional learning.

MR. BARNES:

No, it is not a specific

course. The first line is to look at it within the health curriculum, but then

to expand beyond the curriculum. Primarily, of course, it's about behaviours and

the opportunities that exist not only within the classroom, but school wide

throughout the day.

MR. J. DINN:

Supports of our teachers, as

you mentioned, would be in the form of professional development?

MR. BARNES:

Correct.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

I think

you mentioned that in relation to responsive teaching and that would be part of

the –

MR. BARNES:

Yes.

MR. J. DINN:

How would that take place?

MR. BARNES:

That will be part of the

focus and that's why we say we had professional learning in the fall because

we're not going to just move beyond phase one into phase two with professional

learning for those teachers who took on the responsive teaching and learning

policy last year. We'll be circling back with the phase-one schools again in the

fall to look at the lessons learned from year one and then, of course, infusing

social and emotional learning through the professional learning with the

teachers and the phase-one schools within the kindergarten-grade one area.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay, thank you.

As one

principal pointed out to me with regard to responsive teaching, it works as long

as you can make it work; in other words, trying to find the time for teachers to

sit down and meet and come together on this. It's either if it doesn't take

place during the school day it takes place after school when teachers are also

trying to get ready for the next day as well.

The

other

part I noticed, too, when it came to dealing with – I think you referred

to it as students who don't know how to self-regulate, haven't learned how to

self-regulate. What I found is that when we look at class size, we also have to

keep in mind class composition. Invariably, the problem was that you had a large

class size with many needs, one teacher, and you had a student that would

assault the teacher.

I think

in some ways, too, when we're looking at that I hope that the promised teacher

allocation will actually look into that. It's great to have. I fully support

anything that's going to develop fully social and emotional learning, but I

think in some ways if that's it, then we're going to be sadly disappointed by

the results. I think you're going to have to look at it in terms of the supports

in the classroom as well, and that means lower class sizes.

I'm

actually going to move on to 3.2.01, Grants and Subsidies. Would you please

describe what was done in 2018 and what is planned for 2019 and the dollar

amount allocated for each?

MR. WARR:

Under the Grants and

Subsidies there was $45,000 for skilled trades and technology to support skilled

trades initiatives through Skills Canada; there was $20,600 for the

Intra-Provincial Travel Program; $34,000 for the provincial immigration

strategy; $150,400 for the Cultural Connections strategy; $6,000 for Excellence

in Mathematics strategy; and $237,900 for the Education Action Plan youth

apprenticeship co-operative education.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you.

The

increase in 2019 – that may have already been said but you could humour me. That

was an increase of $125,000. Is that for the Education Action Plan?

MR. WARR:

That's an increase for the

youth apprenticeship co-op.

MR. J. DINN:

For Intra-Provincial Travel,

what did you say that was? How much?

MR. WARR:

$20,600.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you.

3.2.02,

with regard to Professional Services, an increase of $5,000. Would that be for

translation services for curriculum guides?

MR. WARR:

$3,000 was the number of

required translations. The number of required translations was higher than

anticipated. There was an increase of $5,300 and that was change resulting from

a zero-based budgeting exercise.

MR. J. DINN:

The translation activity in

2018 you said it was what? And the plans for 2019, you said there was an

increase?

MR. WARR:

There was an increase; the

number of required translations was higher than anticipated.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

Would

you be able to give me – I guess I'm trying to get an idea of the progress on

the translation of curriculum guides and so on and so forth and teacher

resources. I know in the past there's been a real problem where French immersion

themselves. Have these services been taken care so that French immersion

teachers have the resources they need.

MR. WARR:

Yes.

MR. J. DINN:

Those guides and textbooks are up to date? Thank you very much.

Federal

revenue; what's the extra money for? The extra funds there in federal revenue?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer that to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

Basically, the difference between the budget for '18-'19 and the revised is

$500,000. There is available to the province $3.9 million of federal revenue

through the official languages agreement with the federal government. We are

eligible for $3.9 million. That's broken down: $2.6 million for French second

language and $1.3 million for French first language.

Over

the past couple of years we've only budgeted revenue of $3.4 million. There's

always been a question whether we can match the federal money. Again, we

budgeted $3.4 million; we did match $3.9 million, so the total revenue coming to

the province this fiscal year or last fiscal year was $3.9 million which is the

maximum we can get. We've decided to budget the $3.9 million revenue, noting

that we can match the $3.9 million with provincial funds for the next fiscal

year.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you very much.

I'm on

to 3.3.01. Education Action Plan task force there – actually, I'll leave it for

the next round and turn it over to my colleague.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Mr.

Pardy.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you.

3.4.01,

in Salaries, $10,500 less budgeted this year compared to last year. I wonder if

you can clarify that.

MR. WARR:

It was related to step funding for multiple positions. There was a $3,100

reclassification of the clerk position.

MR. PARDY:

Am I correct to assume that the assessment we're going to use in schools is

going to be somewhat mirroring the, say, PISA instrument? Would it be correct to

assume that other provinces are doing the same? Or do they already have the

instrument design that would mirror the PISA assessment, or are we pioneers in

relation to this?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer that to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

Other provinces have

different assessment programs depending on which province, territory you look

at. I would suggest that Alberta is probably the ones that have to move closer

to the PISA PCAP framework, but we probably are one of the leading provinces

right now in terms of assessment and mirroring the PCAP PISA framework and

philosophy.

MR. PARDY:

Just to reference the Fraser

Institute, back in 2016, a little dated, but when they stated the status of our

province in relation to other provinces we were, I think, third probably in

Canada, our placing. When I hear that, I know the first thing you do is you

probably analyze the way we do things, and maybe the instrument is one thing

that will assist us.

Are

there any other initiatives the department has done when, in fact, we would be

finishing third in the PISA results nationally?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer that to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

Again, one of the

recommendations from the task force is for us to move to a provincial assessment

that more closely mirrors PISA and PCAP. Over the years, there have been

significant initiatives with respect to the curriculum, you know, reference the

Excellence in Math Strategy that's been ongoing for a number of years.

Certainly, any part of the Education Action Plan related to student achievement,

which most are, whether it's the response of teaching a learning policy or the

addition of reading specialists, reading and math program specialists at the

district level, and teaching and learning assistants, additional teaching and

learning, teacher librarians. Certainly, all of those, we would suggest, would

have a positive impact on student achievement and be reflective in subsequent

administrations of PISA and PCAP.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you.

I would

also say I think when we do the teacher allocation next year, then we'll find

that is of significant importance, too, when we look at the results of our

students – there's no doubt the class size that they find themselves in.

You

mentioned the LRT. Can you explain what the duties of the LRT would be? It might

seem like a trivial basic question, but I often wonder sometimes how the LRT

affects the teaching and learning within the classroom. Would there be PD to

make sure they're utilized as fully as what our expectations would be? Where

were, I guess, the roles? And I know we've increased the ratio or the allocation

of LRTs.

I'm

just wondering what it would be based on. Because me coming out of the system, I

probably would not have had that earmarked as one that I would think would be

one of the premier steps that I would think to improve the system, but I've been

off track many times.

MR. GARDINER:

You're correct. The current allocation of learning resource teachers, based on

the allocation model, is one per thousand. There was a recommendation from the

task force report to increase the learning resource teaching allocation. It

didn't give a number or a ratio.

Over

the three years – again, heading into year two next year – there will be an

additional 39 teacher librarians in the system. So I think at the end of three

years then it would be incumbent on the department to do the further analysis to

determine what does an allocation of teacher librarians look like for the school

districts and come up with a new model, as opposed to one per thousand, plus an

additional for Education Action Plan or task force report. I think we need to

meld all that into what it looks like from a more holistic perspective in terms

of the allocation for teacher librarians.

There

is professional learning available and delivered for teacher librarians at the

district level; the same as with any group of teachers. There was significant

effort by the district over the past year, year and a half, in terms of

delineating the duties of teacher librarians – particularly in the phase one

schools – in light of the increased allocation.

MR. PARDY:

Am I correct, you said the school district, there was work in delineating the

roles of these teachers?

MR. GARDINER:

Correct.

MR. PARDY:

Okay. So they have the ability to do that, not the department, but it will be

the school district?

MR. GARDINER:

They will be the employer, yes. So they would have the roles and

responsibilities of the teacher librarians outlined.

MR. PARDY:

Okay. Interesting.

So if I

were to ask a question, would technology be involved in their role, then that

would be the school district's determination as to whether it is?

MR. GARDINER:

Technically – the department would have fairly high level roles and

responsibilities that would outline then what the district would further enhance

in terms of on the ground deployment of these individuals. And I would suggest

that, yes, technology certainly would be part of their duties.

MR. PARDY:

Yes, good.

I know

the Child and Youth Advocate had stated – I think may have stated that we have

chronic absenteeism in our schools. I'm not sure what year they had cited. I

think 10 per cent of the population was missing at a given year, which equated

to 6,600 students. I'm not sure if I'm overly correct. I would say that is an

alarming statistic.

I know

we had talked about the SSTs, and I know that is a step even when I asked. I

think I'm correct in assuming that they gave the department one year they want

to see as to what the action would be. Is it possible that you can share that

with us? I mentioned the SST, but what other initiatives that we look at to curb

the chronic absenteeism in our schools that the department would be looking at?

MR. WARR:

I'll defer that to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

The Child and Youth Advocate

did put out a report with respect to absenteeism and she did indicate that

approximately 10 per cent of the students are missing a minimum of 10 per cent

of the days in a school year. She did have four recommendations there,

recognizing that this is not just an education issue. It's one that crosses

lines with Health and Community Services, Justice and Public Safety, as well as

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

There

is an active working group now looking at putting together a plan to address the

four recommendations, and she suggested that we have a report back to her or a

plan done by December – either December or January coming. That will be done.

One of

the biggest things, of course, is accurate data. So we are moving towards a

provincial system with respect to PowerSchool that will provide us better data

and allow us to track attendance. There's a committee that put together a

working group now, put together with representation from the departments that I

just mentioned, as well as some community groups such as Strive and the Murphy

Centre, having the discussion on absenteeism and what can be done to keep

students in school, recognizing obviously the importance of that.

MR. PARDY:

Good. Just one follow-up

question. Thank you very much for that.

The

active working group, I am assuming is cross agency?

MR. GARDINER:

Yes.

MR. PARDY:

Yes. Good.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Mr. Dinn.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't

know if I heard it correctly; with regard to – is it the intent then of the

Education Action Plan, one of the intents is to improve our province's standing

on PISA and, as such, as PISA. How much does PISA play into this Education

Action Plan?

I know,

in the Way Forward sessions I attended, that it was certainly brought up about

Newfoundland's poor performance in relation to these national, international

tests.

MR. WARR:

I'll defer to Bob.

MR. GARDINER:

I wouldn't even say that

it's just the intent of the Education Action Plan but certainly the intent of

any initiative – and, of course, the Education Action Plan being the primary

initiative for the department over the next number of years. But any of these

initiatives, the primary intent is to improve student achievement and, as such,

we would expect to see that reflected in PISA and PCAP results but certainly

everything we do needs to be around student achievement and improving student

achievement.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

Here's

my question: In the begin